UPDATE: On March 6, 2026, at a status conference in Atmus Filtration, the CIT paused their March 4 order requiring the CBP to start issuing IEEPA refunds immediately in response to a declaration by CBP that explained its Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) system limitations as well as other limitations that prevent it from complying with the order. The declaration also explained that CBP intends to modify its ACE system to include new functionality to streamline the refund claim process and that CBP expected it can implement this new functionality in 45 days.

The CBP stated that it: “anticipates that the process will involve the following steps:

• The importer files a declaration in ACE that includes a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid.
• ACE runs a series of validations on each entry within the declaration and automatically re-calculates the duty owed without the IEEPA tariffs (with applicable interest).
• CBP verifies the declaration and processes refunds as soon as practicable.
• ACE automatically finalizes (liquidates or reliquidates) the entries.
• ACE automatically aggregates the refunds with interest by importer and liquidation date.
• CBP certifies the refunds.
• The Department of the Treasury issues IEEPA refunds electronically.”

UPDATE: On March 5, 2026, in Oregon v. Trump, twenty-two states and two governors filed suit in the CIT challenging the newly imposed Section 122 tariffs.[1]

UPDATE: On March 4, 2026, in Atmus Filtration, the CIT ordered that:

“with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.”[2]

As noted below, liquidation is final 180 days after the liquidation date unless an administrative protest was timely filed. At present, it is not clear whether the CIT’s order applies only to importers that filed suit with the CIT or whether it applies to all importers that paid IEEPA tariffs. However, based on an initial reading of the order, it appears intended to apply to all importers including those that have not filed suit at the CIT. The Government has represented that any validated refund of IEEPA duties would include interest.[3] It is also not clear whether the Government will appeal to the Federal Circuit and request a stay of the CIT’s order. In addition, it remains open to the Government to file a petition before the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing of its IEEPA decision in Learning Resources.

Original Post Updated Through March 4, 2026

On February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the “IEEPA”) does not authorize the President to impose sweeping tariffs on imported goods. As a result, the Court invalidated the series of tariffs that were imposed by the Trump Administration beginning February 2025 pursuant to declarations of national emergency tied to drug trafficking and persistent trade deficits. Because the issue of refunds was not before it, the Court remanded the cases to the lower courts to resolve that issue. As a result, U.S. importers[4] or other parties with rights to IEEPA tariff refunds that have not already taken steps to preserve their rights to refund claims, should take timely action in the aftermath of the Court’s decision.

As explained in more detail below, in response to the Court decision in Learning Resources, a business that may be entitled to an IEEPA refund should take the following actions to preserve their rights:

• Documentation of IEEPA tariffs paid should be preserved and maintained immediately, including any contracts with other members of the supply chain.
• Existing contracts throughout the supply chain should be reviewed to determine whether they contain express or implied tariff contingencies. Going forward, all new bids and contracts should contain appropriate tariff contingencies.
• A business that may be eligible for IEEPA tariff refunds should calendar all deadlines that are relevant to preserving its rights, e.g., the expected liquidation date, the 180-day protest deadline, and the two-year deadline for filing a claim with the Court of International Trade.
• A business with unliquidated entries, should immediately take steps to file a Post Summary Correction for an entry within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment. In the event claims are about to liquidate, a business could consider filing extensions, but it appears unlikely those extensions will be granted.
• A business with liquidated entries could consider filing a protest within 180 days of liquidation, however, it is not clear a protest will be successful. In the event a protest is denied, or in the alternative, a business can preserve its rights by filing suit in the Court of International Trade within a two-year deadline.
• If a business has agreements with members of its supply chain that entitle it to all or a portion of an IEEPA tariff refund, the business should take steps to timely issue any notices to a contractual counterparty regarding a claim of indemnity, to trigger any future price adjustments, or to claim any other such contractual remedies.
• Future legal challenges of the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that went into effect February 24, 2026 are expected, so a business should also preserve documentation related to these tariffs to potentially recoup any such duties paid.[5]
• Finally, a business should consider the federal and state income tax effects of tariff refunds, the potential for sales and use tax refunds, and any financial accounting adjustments that may be required as a result of an IEEPA tariff refund.

The process for obtaining IEEPA tariff refunds is likely to be administratively challenging. The steps a claimant needs to take to preserve its rights to a refund will depend in part on whether the entries are liquidated or unliquidated.[6] Liquidation refers to the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries.[7] Generally, when goods are imported into the U.S., the importer of record pays an estimated duty on the entry based on its customs declaration. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) then determines the final amount of the import duty, “liquidates” the entry, and notifies the importer of record whether additional funds are owed or whether they are entitled to a refund.[8]

Unless extended by CBP, an entry must be liquidated within one year from the date of entry, failing which liquidation is deemed to occur by operation of law.[9] Liquidation typically occurs 314 days after the date of entry of the goods.

Unliquidated Entries

For unliquidated entries, it is possible to file a Post Summary Correction (“PSC”) for an entry within the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”), which is the U.S. centralized digital system for processing imports and exports, subject to certain applicable criteria.[10] In terms of timing, a PSC must be submitted within 300 days from the date of entry but 15 days before the scheduled liquidated date.[11] A timely PSC may enable the change of the duty recalculation before liquidation, resulting in a refund.

As noted above, entries are typically liquidated 314 days after entry. The earliest IEEPA tariffs became effective February 4, 2025, so those entries began to liquidate December 15, 2025.

Note that in the event there is insufficient time to file a PSC within the deadline mentioned above, an extension of liquidation may be considered. Extensions may be granted by CBP for up to three additional years, based on a written request by the importer showing good cause for the extension, or where CBP needs more information for liquidation.[12] However, extensions at the importer’s request are at the discretion of the CBP, and it remains uncertain and/or appears unlikely that CBP will grant extensions under these circumstances as pending litigation is generally not considered a basis for an extension. But the Supreme Court’s remand to the lower courts for resolution of the refund issues may be a justifiable basis for liquidation extension. International trade and taxation counsel may also determine if other grounds exist sufficient to support an application for liquidation extension.

Liquidated Entries

After an entry is liquidated, an importer of record has 180 days to file a protest contesting the liquidation and requesting that the CBP “reliquidate” the duties.[13] But not all liquidated entries may be protested. Specifically, when CBP’s role is purely ministerial, the liquidation may not be protested.[14] Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has noted that in cases challenging the constitutionality of a duty, filing a protest is futile because CBP is only authorized to collect the duty and has no authority to make any decision regarding the constitutionality of a duty.[15] As a result, before the Court’s decision in Learning Resources, over a thousand importers filed suit at the Court of International Trade (the “CIT”), which has exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action commenced against the U.S., seeking injunctions suspending the liquidation of entries.[16]

On December 15, 2025, the CIT issued a decision in AGS Co. Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. denying AGS’s motion for a preliminary injunction suspending liquidation.[17] In so holding, the CIT stated that it had the authority to order reliquidation and refunds. The CIT also noted that the Government has taken the unequivocal position that liquidation will not affect the availability of refunds after a final and unappealable decision in Learning Resources and that the Government would be judicially estopped from assuming a contrary position in the future.[18] However, in court filings, the Government has also indicated that it reserves its right to challenge specific complaints.[19] Finally, in AGS, the CIT also noted that because CBP had no authority to make any decision regarding the legality or constitutionality of the Executive Orders at issue, the CIT has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) rather than § 1581(a) to order reliquidation and refunds, i.e., liquidation of the entries at issue is not final under § 1514. Thus, an importer has two years to file suit file suit with the CIT to seek a refund of IEEPA tariff refunds on liquidated entries instead of the 180 days provided for an administrative protest.[20]

At present, it is unclear whether the CIT has the power to order refunds for importers other than plaintiffs in IEEPA refund suits.[21] In addition, based on public statements made by the Trump Administration, there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether the Government will continue to raise challenges to IEEPA tariff refunds. Thus, an importer with significant previously liquidated IEEPA refund claims should consider whether filing suit with the CIT is appropriate. In addition, such an importer should immediately calendar the two-year deadline for such a suit conservatively, although there is some controversy over whether the cause of action first accrued as early as the imposition of the tariffs or as late as the date of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, or upon each event of liquidation.

At present, it is also unclear whether filing suit with the CIT remains the only route available for entries that have been liquidated by CBP but where the 180-day protest period has not yet run out. Although the CBP lacks the authority to consider issues of constitutionality as part of the protest procedure, that concern arguably does not remain after the U.S. Supreme Court has issued its decision (or at least once the 25-day deadline to file a petition for rehearing has elapsed or the Court’s decision on such a petition has been issued). Nevertheless, the CIT’s decisions leave some doubt as to whether payments collected or liquidated by CBP before the Supreme Court’s decision can be protested at all. This route may therefore offer more potential where CBP liquidates an entry after the Court’s decision in Learning Resources. If the protest route is pursued, and the protest is denied, a suit may be filed with the CIT within a two-year deadline.

It remains possible that the CBP will create an altogether new process to issue the refunds or use an existing process, such as drawback procedures which are presently used to refund import duties on items that are exported or destroyed.[22] In the event CBP utilizes drawback procedures, it should be noted that the 5-year drawback filing window does not stop the two-year statute of limitations to file suit with the CIT from running.

Other legislative options may also be proposed, for instance, statutory mechanisms for paying IEEPA tariff refunds, such as the Restoring Economic Lifelines for Independent Enterprises and Family Businesses (RELIEF) Act (H.R. 7615) introduced by Democrats in Congress on the day the ruling was issued, that would require the tariffs to be automatically refunded by CBP within 90 days of its enactment.

Documentation

Documentation is critical for obtaining refund claims. Potential claimants should immediately take steps to preserve and maintain electronic documentation of each entry, including the entry number, entry date, country of origin, tariff classification, description of merchandise, the type and amount of duties paid, and the projected liquidation date. In addition, local copies of entry records should also be maintained including the CF 7501 summary, entry orders, invoices, packing slips, and bills of lading.

Further, it is possible that contractual agreements between parties in the supply chain require refunds to be divided among those parties. As a result, both potential claimants and other participants in the supply chain should preserve and maintain any contracts or other documents that entitle them to all or a portion of any IEEPA refunds obtained by the importer of record.

Because future legal challenges of the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that went into effect February 24, 2026 are expected, a business should also preserve similar documentation related to Section 122 tariffs in anticipation that refunds may be available in the future.[23]

Contractual Obligations in the Supply Chain

The options above related to refunds of unliquidated and liquidated claims are generally confined to parties who are the importers of record. However, it is likely that other parties in the supply chain will have borne some or all of these duties in most cases. As noted above, these parties may have agreements among themselves regarding the disposition of refund claims initially paid to the importer or record.

For such parties, it is imperative to consider contractual remedies such as price adjustments or indemnities that may enable them to recoup the duties they have economically borne. Existing contracts throughout the supply chain should be reviewed to determine whether they contain express or implied tariff contingencies. It is particularly important that any time-sensitive action points be initiated immediately, for instance, the issuance of any notices to a contractual counterparty regarding a claim of indemnity within any stipulated deadlines. In addition, any active disputes that implicate IEEPA tariffs should be reviewed to determine the impact of the Court’s decision in Learning Resources.

Going forward, all new bids and contracts should contain appropriate tariff contingencies.

Tax and Financial Accounting Issues

Finally, businesses should not be remiss in considering the roll-on federal, state and local tax consequences, as well as the accounting implications, of any refunds or reimbursement. This may range from federal income tax as well as state income or franchise taxes, to state and local sales and use taxes, to transfer pricing arrangements. It could also include consideration of the impact on business forecasting and cost assumptions. At this stage, factoring in these consequences may provide a truer picture of the overall financial impact and inform strategic decisions.

From an income tax perspective, if an importer is required to remit all or a portion of a refund claim to another member of the supply chain, such as the manufacturer or owner of the goods, the parties should consider whether the refund should be reflected as a change in the price of the goods. The business ultimately receiving the refund would likely have taxable income if it previously deducted the IEEPA tariff or may be required to make basis adjustments to inventory or costs of goods sold if it capitalized the tariffs. Intercompany transfer pricing agreements should also be reviewed and revised if necessary.

From a sales tax perspective, most states include tariffs in the sales tax base unless the importer purchased the imported item for its own use. As a result, participants in the supply chain may be entitled to sales tax refunds. A business that paid sales tax on IEEPA tariffs should immediately calendar the statute of limitations deadline for filing refund claims and take steps to document the amount of tax paid on the tariff.

From a financial accounting perspective, a business that has not yet issued its financial statements should consider whether the Court’s decision in Learning Resources is a subsequent event under ASC 855. Consideration should also be given to whether other financial statement disclosures or adjustments are required. For example, adjustments may be required if IEEPA tariffs were capitalized and included in the cost of inventory or property, plant and equipment.

For additional information, please contact: Jaye Calhoun at (504) 293-5936, Stephen Hanemann at (504) 620-3342, Willie Kolarik at (225) 382-3441, or Divya Jeswant at (504) 293-5766.

Jaye Calhoun, Willie Kolarik, and Divya Jeswant are members of Kean Miller’s Tax group, counseling a variety of clients on federal, state and local tax (SALT), and estate planning matters. Stephen Hanemann is a member of the firm’s Offshore Energy & Marine group, focusing on international trade and regularly advising clients navigating complex global regulatory, finance, and logistics challenges and opportunities. Based in the firm’s New Orleans and Baton Rouge offices, these attorneys collaborate across practice areas to deliver strategic, business-focused counsel to companies operating at the intersection of trade, taxation, and international commerce.

[1] Oregon v. Trump, No. 26-cv-01472 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 5, 2026).

[2] Atmus Filtration Inc. v. U.S., No. 26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 4, 2026) (available at: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.21.0.pdf).

[3] See Declaration of Brandon Lord In Response to the Court’s Questions of March 3, 2026, Atmus Filtration Inc. v. U.S., No. 26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 4, 2026) (available at: assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rHOHCRS__Sps/v0).

[4] Importer means the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise, or an authorized agent acting on his behalf. The importer may be the consignee, or the importer of record, or the actual owner of the merchandise, if an actual owner’s declaration and superseding bond has been filed in accordance with the regulations, or the transferee of the merchandise, if the right to withdraw merchandise in a bonded warehouse has been transferred in accordance with the regulations. 19 C.F.R. 101.1. Generally speaking, the “importer of record” is an importer that is responsible for ensuring the imported goods comply with all customers and legal requirements. The importer of record is usually the owner or purchaser of the merchandise but, when appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee of the merchandise, a customs broker. 19 USC 1484(a)(2)(B).

[5] Oregon v. Trump, No. 26-cv-01472 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 5, 2026) (available at: assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rY5pAP1lbqDU/v0). The suspension of the statutory de minimis exemption under the IEEPA is also being contested in Axle of Dearborn Inc. d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Department of Commerce, No. 1:25-cv-00091 (Ct. Intl. Trade May 5, 2025) (available at: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17105/gov.uscourts.cit.17105.2.0.pdf). The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) repeals the de minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027.

[6] An “entry” means the documentation or data required to be filed by 19 C.F.R. 142.3 with the appropriate CBP officer or submitted electronically to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system to secure the release of imported merchandise from CBP custody, or the act of filing that documentation. 19 C.F.R. 141.0a(a).

[7] 19 C.F.R. § 159.1.

[8] See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1500 and 1505(B). Refunds of excessive duties, taxes, fees or interest shall be certified for payment to the importer of record unless a transferee of the right to withdraw merchandise from bonded warehouse is entitled to receive the refund, or an owner’s declaration has been filed, or a surety submits evidence of payment to CBP, upon default of the principal, of amounts previously determined to be due on the same entry or transaction. 19 C.F.R. 24.36(b).

[9] 19 C.F.R. § 1504(a)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 159.12.

[10] Post Summary Corrections | U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Liquidations process on a weekly cycle (Fridays) in the ACE system. See Liquidation in ACE | U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

[11] Post Summary Corrections | U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

[12] 19 C.F.R. § 159.12.

[13] 19 U.S.C. § 1514.

[14] Rimco Inc. v. United States, 98 F. 4th 1046, 1052-1053 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

[15] Thomson Consumer Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 247 F. 3d 1210, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

[16] See 19 U.S.C. § 1518(i)(1)(B).

[17] AGS Co. Auto. Sole. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., No. 25-00255 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 15, 2025).

[18] See AGS Co. Auto. Sole. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., No. 25-00255, Defendants’ Response to Court’s January 8, 2026 Letter (Ct. Int’l Trade January 8, 2026) (available at: gov.uscourts.cit.17270.34.0_2.pdf). A copy of the Court’s January 8, 2026 Letter is available at gov.uscourts.cit.17270.33.0_1.pdf. In their response to the Court’s letter, in order to obviate the need for preliminary injunctions for similarly situated plaintiffs in the IEEPA tariffs cases currently before the Court, the Government stipulated that it does not intend to challenge the Court’s authority to order reliquidation. However, the Government reserved its right to challenge specific complaints on the ground that they were not similarly situated. The stipulation was necessary because in past cases questions arose about whether the Court’s broad statutory grants of authority to order relief or money judgments against the Government in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1585 and 2643 was sufficient for the Court to order reliquidation. In Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States, 923 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019) the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Government’s stipulations that the Court had the authority to reliquidate entries and that the claimant would be entitled to refunds plus interest on any overpayments was sufficient to judicially estop the Government from later taking a contrary position.

[19] Id.

[20] 28 U.S.C. § 2636.

[21] On February 24, 2026, the plaintiffs in V.O.S. Selections asked the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to finalize its ruling so that the CIT could begin determining next steps regarding the refund claims. On February 25^th, the Federal Circuit ordered the Government to respond to V.O.S.’s motion immediately. On February 27^th, the Government filed an opposition to V.O.S.’s motion asking for 90 days to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options. On March 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected the Government’s opposition and granted V.O.S.’s motion, sending the case back to the CIT for immediate action. In addition, on February 24^th, the plaintiff’s in V.O.S. Selections also asked the CIT to issue an order granting their motion for permanent injunctive relief.

[22] See 19 U.S.C. 131 and 19 C.F.R. Part 190. See also Drawback in ACE | U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

[23] On February 20, 2026, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in HMTX Industries LLC, et al.  v. United States et al., 23-1891 (Fed. Cir. 2025) upholding the tariffs imposed under section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. section 2411) on imports from China.